Re: [VOTE][RFC] intdiv()

On 3 Aug 2014, at 13:51, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote: > Based on the discussion on internals@ I'm not sure why it should not be > construed as consensus against any kind of operator for intdiv. Quite the > contrary, those who opposed it (myself included) opposed it on the grounds > that it's not nearly commonly used to be worth a dedicated operator. > Quoting one of those who opposed, "IMHO this is not enough for a new > operator... Especially if this means we have to tolerate something like > %/" (note both the operator being different from the one that ended up > being proposed in the RFC, and the key objection being the necessity of > needing this as an operator in the first place). > >> To save hassle, could I not modify the current RFC and hold another > vote? I >> don't see why we'd need an entirely new RFC. > > I think that the best way to save us all hassle is to accept that there's > overwhelming majority against introducing a dedicated operator for this > use case... > I think a revote should be considered only if you come up with a concrete > alternative, and you get a pretty good reason to believe that the results > will be different (e.g. by asking 5-10 people who voted 'no' on the > current RFC and getting a 'yes' from at least some of them). We need to > be respectful of people's time - and generally not assume that something > that was voted upon and rejected, will be accepted after minor mods. Right. While I’d love to hold another vote and get it in, I know it’s not going to happen. Just switching to %/ or something is not going to really change the general consensus against the need for %%. At best, it might mean one more vote in favour but it’s hardly going to swing it. Unless someone presents me a proposal that will somehow get this a 2/3 majority and actually pleases everyone, it’s not going to be reopened. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/